You have to understand the hows and whys of Okinawan kata development.

I don't advocate form based training. Forms for the sake of forms is empty and useles.

There are no secrets, there are no codes.

The techniques I refer to are very simple things like shoulder throws, chokes, and basic locks.

Drills, combos, bag work...all of those train technique as well, if not better than solo form practice.

One step sparring and the majority of kata style drills are an exercise in elementary school karate, literally. They are worthless, a waste of time.

The human race continues to fight in the same manner it has used since the dawn of time. All that's changed are various circumstances adn theories (usage or armor, difference between civil and military usage, etc). I really doubt that in Okinawa two hundred years ago that in order to fight, men drew up into horse stance and pulled both of their fists back to their hips.

Blocks? There's no such thing as blocks. That is an elementary school level of understanding of the kata.

The original Kanji for "block" is 受, pronounced "uke". This does not mean block. . These were techniques for receiving an opponent's motion and countering, usually with a throw or a lock.

Here is a static example for you of your example of the "low block".

Face your partner. With your right hand, grab the sleeve of his dobok at his right upper arm as you enter his right side. Step behind him, getting your center of gravity next to his. With your left arm, reach across to grab the left shoulder of his dobok (or possibly his hair, ear, or fish hook him). Now, let your left arm perform that low arcing motion.

In Enshin Karate, this is known as Ura Nage, or "back throw". It's not to be confused with Judo's ura nage, a sacrifice throw.

There is no such thing as chambering. There is however grabbing, entangling, and pulling an opponent's limbs.

Kata in Okinawan karate developed for a reason.

Koryu jujutsu was originally taught in two man kata, in a static, "dead" manner. The Koryu had scrolls (maki), that contained the syllabus, skills, and secrets of their individual schools.
Kano came along and changed all of this, and in Judo, throws were taught in an alive manner, leading to the general superiority of Judo over many Koryu schools as far as throws are concerned.

Continue the development, and we see the evolution of Brazilian jujutsu, one of the most modern and sophisticated martial arts taught today, enjoying amazing success.

Traditional Karate kata were one taught in two man form as well, with joint locks and throws being taught in a similar manner. However, there were no scrolls or written syllabus. Rather, there was the solo form, which served as a moving syllabus for a given teaching. This required having a teacher who could show you how to perform the techniques of the kata, as traditionally Okinawan karate was passed on from one teacher to one student.
No Judo came along for Karate. Rather, karate was "dumbed" down for elementary school students. Kata were taught as a sole means of development, rather than as a complete syllabus.

This karate is brought to Japan, and from Japan, to Korea. This is the post popular perception of kata...that they are a collection of block-punch, or block-kick techniques.

Overall, in today's age, I would say it is not necessary to have the kata.
However, if you followed the parallel historical overview, I would say the contents of the kata syllabus have not been studied in enough detail to develop them. Rather, they have been dumbed down.

Kata and sparring are two entirely different activities. They draw upon different talents, skills , movements, and knowledge. They have different goals. Those who are highly successful in one area are almost never successful in the other.

Forms properly used can train your fundamentals. Stances, body position, etc. They can't teach you how to fight. To me, a well rounded martial artist must be able to be proficient at forms, as well as proficient at fighting. Otherwise, they're just a fighter, or a LARPER. Our full contact fighters are also required to compete in forms divisions, for the purpose of demonstrating the entire package. Those that think forms are stupid and have no use are entitled to thier opinion but I choose to disagree.

Our sets (forms) were there just to get your body to understand movement, that was it, the more you would understand movement the easier it was for you to teach your body to fight correctly.

And the more advanced the form, the more detailed understanding of movement you have. I also like Omega's comment that his sifu didn't teach him how to fight, he taught him how to train. That alone is worth the price of admission.

However, if you followed the parallel historical overview, I would say the contents of the kata syllabus have not been studied in enough detail to develop them. Rather, they have been dumbed down.

There are a couple of things I disagree with in Errants post but this one is spot on. Properly taught, there's a great deal that can be learned from forms. Unfortunately, most people who are taught forms are never taught what the underlying purpose is.

For some reason everything I encounter lately has to do with forms. This is a typical semi fluff piece from Kung Fu forum. Hell, the fight described in the beginning sounds just like the fight in fearless.

Cai elaborates on how competition has affected the way martial arts are taught today. "Now in the Shanghai Physical College, there are six wushu professors and ten to twenty candidates. It is important for the candidates to study by the technique and the theory. Some people know taolu (form chinese). Some people only know sanda (fighting). Surely, if you know both, it is ideal, but from the competition point of view, you only choose one. Today, Ph.D. classes require more theory, so usually the candidate will only emphasize one area, usually something they have chosen themselves. But from individual preference, you might only choose one too. If someone practices Taijiquan, their purpose might be for better health, and then they don't really ever need to learn how to fight."

Cai demonstrates a fast movement of Taijiquan to make his point. "If someone practices taiji like this, then other people will say it is not good taiji." Cai then demonstrates a more typical slow taiji movement. "When you practice taiji, you have to be slow. If it is not slow, they won't call it Taijiquan. You are practicing jing (power). However, when you want to strike someone, if you move too slowly, you will never hit them. You have to react fast to hit your target. But if you always practice very slowly, how can you suddenly speed it up during a combat situation? If you really want to be an expert at martial arts, you must learn taolu and sanda. If you only want to train for health or only for fighting, then you only need to concentrate in one area."

The Fighting Dragon
The most common criticism of modern wushu taolu is that it cannot be used for fighting. As a fighter and a wushu pioneer, Cai addresses the issue. "The combat applications from taolu are usually too complicated to use in any real-life combat situation. Practical applications should be very fast and direct. My martial arts skills have been passed down through my family. We only had a few kicks: heel kick, inside and outside crescent, front kick, side kick, hook and sweep. The punches were straight punches and hooks - that's all. Today, taolu has so many varieties of punches and kicks like palm strikes, spear palms, spring kicks, jump kicks, reverse arch kicks, high front sweep kicks, high back sweep kicks, and so on."

"The training I received from my father was different. We trained more for reactions. For instance, a cue was given like a left hand signal equals a right punch, and the punch had to be there - very fast. It was the same for any punch or kick. Nowadays, I feel that students' reaction times are slower. They might wait for one, two, or three counts, which is too slow. Also in taolu, the posture requirements for horse stance, bow stance or empty stance are quite high. The position of your body is extremely important. But when you are in real combat, you can't be too worried about getting into a perfect horse stance. For example, when you execute a straight punch in taolu, you must also have a good bow stance. But in combat, you cannot wait to get into a good bow stance and then punch. You must just punch. You have no time to set up perfect footwork. In taolu, you get points deducted when you don't form a perfect palm. A typical palm is made by bending the thumb and tucking it tightly next to the edge of the palm while keeping the other four fingers straight and tightly together. In combat, it is unimportant to have perfect palm."
"It helps to think of it like poetry and regular conversation. Poetry has a meter. It has a rhythm to it, as well as beautiful words. In daily conversation, you don't need any of this to make a point. Taolu is just like a five-word poem and it has its requirements, just like poems. Is that useful? Maybe, but it will never be useful to a combat situation on the street when others are trying to take advantage of you."

well l did wu tai chi fist. it was done as a martial art. it was a long time ago but l remember that after haveing two teachers who were excelant . years of practice l came to the conclusion that it was best for a big man. this because it has a lot of close in movements that require weight . if you look at the fighters than were produced in the old days they are big men. plus in a fight the most dangerous is not one whos totaly defensive. in a fight the winner if all things are equal , the winner would be the first to make a mistake . by equal l mean skill , power and speed as well as experience in battle.

what do l think has more power well l dont do tai chi anymore. l am a old guy but l still believe that moving slow only is so good. just makes one old before your time. the way muscles work is if you work hard slowly the fibres are reacting in small bunches. if you move fast it gets so the fibres now fire in large groupes fast. this means if traing properly that we dont have to get slow and rickety in our 60s and 70s. slow is good to learn a move, but not for ever . if you are used to moveing slowly only you wont all of a sudden speed up becuse your in trouble . why because the muscles memory has it going slow. whereby clc still practiced until sickness took him . but he was in his 80s when he died.
l have a freind hes in his late 70s and he still can move quick. l know another whos father raced vintage motorcycles in his 70s .

in h.k. theres tai chi , one was run by a teacher named chen if you didnt want to fight hed send you to a park to do old mans excersice. the slow forms you see here. pak mei pushes for speed and ging at the beginning when your my age its no big deal. l can still do set s fast with out stopping because l get speed , areobics, and my muscles get work . so l dont need to diet, or use high blood pressure medicine . or any other problems that guys my age usually have. if the body isnt challenged it will start to speed up its deterioration rate.sorry but some arts l think are overated in certian areas. and tai chim is one of them. l dont knock it for someone whos never been very physical but for a young person well.

well wow . first tai chi here is sometimes only taught like you would a beginner. very few really know how to use it in a free way. personaly a style would be dependant on what a person wants from it. if its self defence.then one where you do actually get to learn how properly . not worry about ranking systems, or any grand names. super grandmaster teaches blah blah . also your own personality has much to do with what you pick. pak mei has fire. if you have no heart for it then nothing works . except a 38 special . l have seen fighters who were technicaly correct but no heart. so one should pick the one that you feel inside . the one that makes a rush when you do it. l have always done things that gave me a rush . raced cars , motorcycles, stuff that gave me a rush . not everybody is like that . but if your not that way inclined you can still find one that gets to you.

Originally Posted by lee

most l know that do shing i also do bagua as one is grappling the other is boxing . and again it depends on what you feel . here its said what floats your boat . if the teacher cant fight he cant teach someone to fight. also the quaulity of the teacher is very important. my sifu used break down the as percentages . tai chi is 60 percent excersice and so on . not by thos numbers l picked them at random.

These are really good articles on the history of Chinese Martial Arts. Stanley E. Henning takes the liberty of debunking many popular legends, myths and misunderstandings regarding the Chinese Martial Arts, from Bodhidharma to Zhang Sanfeng.

Unfortunately, all the links I've provided are the only works by Stanley E. Henning I could find. All of his other works require special access through JSTOR and similar databases.

These are really good articles on the history of Chinese Martial Arts. Stanley E. Henning takes the liberty of debunking many popular legends, myths and misunderstandings regarding the Chinese Martial Arts, from Bodhidharma to Zhang Sanfeng.

Unfortunately, all the links I've provided are the only works by Stanley E. Henning I could find. All of his other works require special access through JSTOR and similar databases.